Are owning a gun a bad thing?

Post Reply New Topic

has anyone brought up the fact that Loughner had a clip with 30-some odd bullets in it?

Yes but a potential commander can't really fight without resources. The government can't possibly know everyone with talent in strategic thinking.

Here's a very similar weapon to the one used in the Tuscon shooting, with the same extended aftermarket magazine inserted:

[img][800:750]http://www.radioactive-software.com/images/Guns/11.jpg[/img]

Notice how far the magazine extends out of the butt of the gun, which renders it virtually useless from a concealed carry perspective. The magazine is not actually designed for that gun, it's intended for use with the Glock 18 machine pistol, a weapon not available on the civilian market but sold to police and military buyers. Glocks are designed with largely interchangeable parts for production and maintenance reasons, so the magazines are largely compatible within the caliber and will interchange between different models.
It bears pointing out that the Glock is among the most commonly issued police duty weapons and a common choice of licensed carriers, where the high capacity, reliability and accuracy are seen as it's desirable attributes. The 9mm Glock pistol likely to be found on a policeman's belt has an off the shelf magazine capacity of 17 rounds + the 1 in the chamber. Most police weapons have similarly high capacities, usually in the 15-19 round area with 9mms, though some departments have changed over to .45 ACP and the lower capacity pistols that chamber it, usually holding 7-12 rounds. Civilians tend to choose similar weapons, though often in the compact or subcompact variants for ease of concealment.
Police and armed civilians have similar motives for preferring large magazines, i.e. that it's better to have more shots than you need than not enough. Unfortunately this also works for people who would misuse guns.
Be that as it may, very few criminal incidents involve extended magazines, and in light of the well documented failure of the AWB's magazine restrictions to have any effect on crime, I don't think the case for restricting them can convincingly be made. IMHO, when proposing a restriction on the rights of fellow citizens, it is the duty of the prohibitionists to make and prove the case for their proposal, and since this one has actually been tried before and proven ineffective, I don't feel inclined to try it again.

It's still pretty rare. You have to remember the US is a country of 300 million people. Are there things we should learn from this tragedy? Of course but it's irrational to pass laws restricting our freedoms in return for being more "safe" based purely on emotion. Look what that got us with 9/11, the PATRIOT Act, the TSA, DHS, etc. The actually threat today of a mass shooting is no higher now than it was last Friday.

^^^^

How many mass shootings have you had in comparison to the rest of the world? How many school shootings? What about the gun death rate in general. All of these things happen a great deal more in the United States than they do in any other developed country. How many will it take before you actually decide there might be a problem?